Black Adam vs Superman

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
So, you TRULY admit that Superman has NO true planet pulling feats? Cuz this is all I'm debating about.

Not really. You simply twisted the meanings of the dialogue to suit your needs.

Except there are no contradictions. When everything is taken literally as it is written, it all makes sense.

Um.. GL is in FRONT of the constuct he used to pull. Just standing on the top front part of it. The fact that he was on top of the construct (w/c was in front of the object being pulled) is no different from:

http://img152.imageshack.us/f/moonlo2.jpg/

The construct was in front. He was inside the cockpit of the construct and was not in any way tugging it.

It only looks like that to someone who desperately needs it to be. To a lot of people it looks like GL standing on top of a construct aiding in the pulling of the planet.

Stop making stuff up. I never said he or acknowledged that he was pulling alone, I simply stated the existence of a GL construct makes the feat ambiguous (and thus inadmissible). Nothing more, nothing less. Stop stating things that never happened.

To anyone who KNOWS GL, at BEST, w/o no dialogue, the art can be interpreted to go either way. Tho, I would still say that GL would aid Superman in pulling the planet. I mean, why wouldn't he? He certainly has the power to do so.

Add in the dialogue, however, and the truth is evident.

If the writer wanted to portray GL assisting in the pulling then he wouldn't have drawn it in a way that is seemingly contradictory. These are highly skilled professionals with many years of experience.

lol whatever the case, he was pulling atleast half i would say. which is still crazy, and damn that was a hot construct that GL made

Originally posted by h1a8
It is a lie to say he doesn't have any true planet pulling alone feats. The lie is in the implication that you KNOW when you really don't. For example, I can say that God exists and could be right. But since I don't know I lied. I lied by implying that I know when I actually don't.

You made the claim that he has planet pulling feats. Prove it.

Originally posted by h1a8
Twisting things and making false statements are two different things. All that matters is the TRUTH of statements and how much sense does that interpretation make.

Actually, twisting things IS making false statements. Only this is done by creating FALSE interpretations of existing facts.

Originally posted by h1a8
We reach several highly possible contradictions when Hal's statement is taken literally. Thus his statement is highly possible figurative.

Prove it.

Originally posted by h1a8
This scan proves my stance. Hal was in front and PULLING along with the other two. Where do you get he wasn't tugging. The construct is connected through a green chain.

You misunderstood my meaning. I stated that he wasn't tugging -the construct- (he was simply inside it) as you seem to be implying that he SHOULD be doing to prove that he was pulling in the Superman/GL scan. :-/

Originally posted by h1a8
The construct is in fact pulling along with the other two.

And the construct was pulling along with Superman. See? Constructs CAN pull after all...

Originally posted by h1a8
No it doesn't. It looks like Superman is doing all of the pulling. This is common sense. Non arguable.

Prove it.

Originally posted by h1a8
I agree. The feat isn't admissible as in proving that Superman HAS pulled a planet solo. But it is admissible in proving that Superman is capable of pulling a planet solo. Since in the feat, even if Superman has supplying half of the pulling force, Superman still exerted more than 50 Earth weights of force.

Which isn't what our debate has about. Stop trying to sidestep. Admit you made an error in your original claim that the Starbreaker feat was irrefutable evidence of Superman solo-pulling a planet and maybe you can debate THAT other fact with someone who cares.

Originally posted by h1a8
If the writer wanted to portray GL assisting in the pulling then he wouldn't have drawn it in a way that is seemingly contradictory. These are highly skilled professionals with many years of experience.

If the writer wanted to portray Superman pulling the planet solo. He would have WRITTEN the dialogue to specify that.

Cuz you know. WRITERS write the story/dialogue and ARTISTS [U]draw[/?U] the images. You might wanna look that up. Where did you get your high marks again?

Waiting on your response, h1a8.

H1 will ignore it, wait for a bit, and then argue about it either later in this thread, or in another thread.

You're outmatched son.

Originally posted by Blanket
H1 will ignore it, wait for a bit, and then argue about it either later in this thread, or in another thread.

You're outmatched son.

I'm outmatched? 🙁 How'd that happen?

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
You made the claim that he has planet pulling feats. Prove it.

Actually, twisting things IS making false statements. Only this is done by creating FALSE interpretations of existing facts.

Prove it.

You misunderstood my meaning. I stated that he wasn't tugging -the construct- (he was simply inside it) as you seem to be implying that he SHOULD be doing to prove that he was pulling in the Superman/GL scan. :-/

And the construct was pulling along with Superman. See? Constructs CAN pull after all...

Prove it.

Which isn't what our debate has about. Stop trying to sidestep. Admit you made an error in your original claim that the Starbreaker feat was irrefutable evidence of Superman solo-pulling a planet and maybe you can debate THAT other fact with someone who cares.

If the writer wanted to portray Superman pulling the planet solo. He would have WRITTEN the dialogue to specify that.

Cuz you know. WRITERS write the story/dialogue and ARTISTS [U]draw[/?U] the images. You might wanna look that up. Where did you get your high marks again?

Originally posted by h1a8
I made the claim that it is more believable that Superman has planet pulling feats. I also made the claim that he is capable of pulling planets solo.

Ok. Now THAT is a lie. You made SPECIFIC references to Superman HAVING planet pulling feats. Not simply that he is capable of doing so. Lemme get an old quote of yours a few pages back:

Originally posted by h1a8
His implication isn't right on that one item though. Superman has moved masses as large or larger than a planet without pulling help though.

Stop trying to twist the facts of this debate. :-/ That's just sad.

Originally posted by h1a8
"The artwork makes it appear as if Superman is pulling solo while Hal is supporting the harness." How is that a false statement?

Wow. As false as the above statement is (as you've not yet proved that at all), MY reply was based on your comment:

Originally posted by h1a8
Twisting things and making false statements are two different things. All that matters is the TRUTH of statements and how much sense does that interpretation make.

I merely corrected your false perceptions of proper behavior. Twisting things AND making false statements ARE similar. :-/

Originally posted by h1a8
The artwork for one. If the writer wanted to show that Hal was pulling then he wouldn't have drawn it in a way that makes it look like Superman is doing the pulling solo. These are professionals with many years experience.

Hal wasn't drawn in a way to make the artwork conclusive in any way. I've already mentioned many times why. Stop insisting on something you can't prove.

Originally posted by h1a8
This point is moot. Clearly the writer is appealing to people's common sense. It is not common sense to assume Hal is pulling a planet from on top while Superman is the only one in front. That is why they had Hal in the FRONT on the moon towing feat. The writer is appealing to people's common sense. Of course they can but Hal must be in front of something planet sized or it renders confusion to the reader.

Again. He was standing on the FRONT end of the constuct.

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/8486/supermanmovesplanet1ns7.jpg

Superman was just a bit MORE in front than him as he needs to be in a harness to help pull the planet. :-/

Originally posted by h1a8
One can't prove an opinion.

Then stop trying to misrepresent your opinions as facts while in a debate. :-/

Originally posted by h1a8
It DOES look like Superman is pulling solo. What you can do is get a survey. Without giving any info or clues, ask people does the scan look like Superman is pulling solo.

"Appeal to common belief" is a logical fallacy, FYI.

As much as I believe that the majority will easily state that it is a shared feat, the only person who can really confirm the truth is the writer.

Originally posted by h1a8
I already did. You definitely don't have a good memory. My new claim was there is evidence of Superman's solo pulling.

No. You made a false admission with a retraction attached to it. You seem to have a selective memory. You need to grow up and grow a pair. tbh.

Originally posted by h1a8
False. Hyperbole and figure of speech are abundant in comics.

Hyperbole does not apply to this scan and the "figure of speech" argument can't be proven. Which means this comment is completely irrelevant.

Originally posted by h1a8
Writers dictate the artwork. If the artwork is wrong then the writer makes the artist redo it.

Which doesn't make them DRAW the comic in any way. :-/

Originally posted by h1a8
If the writer wanted to portray GL assisting in the pulling then he wouldn't have drawn it in a way that is seemingly contradictory.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Ok. Now THAT is a lie. You made SPECIFIC references to Superman HAVING planet pulling feats. Not simply that he is capable of doing so. Lemme get an old quote of yours a few pages back:

Stop trying to twist the facts of this debate. :-/ That's just sad.

Wow. As false as the above statement is (as you've not yet proved that at all), MY reply was based on your comment:

I merely corrected your false perceptions of proper behavior. Twisting things AND making false statements ARE similar. :-/

Again. He was standing on the FRONT end of the constuct.

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/8486/supermanmovesplanet1ns7.jpg

Superman was just a bit MORE in front than him as he needs to be in a harness to help pull the planet. :-/

Then stop trying to misrepresent your opinions as facts while in a debate. :-/

"Appeal to common belief" is a logical fallacy, FYI.

As much as I believe that the majority will easily state that it is a shared feat, the only person who can really confirm the truth is the writer.

No. You made a false admission with a retraction attached to it. You seem to have a selective memory. You need to grow up and grow a pair. tbh.

Hyperbole does not apply to this scan and the "figure of speech" argument can't be proven. Which means this comment is completely irrelevant.

Which doesn't make them DRAW the comic in any way. :-/

Well, "If the writer wanted to portray GL assisting in the pulling then he wouldn't have the artist drawn it in a way that is seemingly contradictory."

Is that better?

h1's bullshit logic is supreme 😐

Originally posted by h1a8
Your logic sucks. Of course I made that claim. But then admitted to being wrong. The wrongness wasn't that Superman DOESN'T have planet pulling feats but that I implied that it is irrefutable.

Again, you never admitted to being wrong. What you made was a "forced" admission with a retraction attached to it, which is meaningless.

You didn't post anything irrefutable. Just a lot of BS w/c other ppl other than myself will prove wrong.

Originally posted by h1a8
You are the one twisting things. How can I admit to Superman not having planet pulling feats when that isn't necessary true? It may be true it may be not true.

Except that you made the claim and thus must prove it. What part of "burden of proof" seems to be so complicated to you?

Originally posted by h1a8
Prove that you appear to be a human and not an alien. If you can do so then I will prove that the artwork appears to show Superman doing the pulling alone and Hal doing the supporting.

This argumentation is silly. By definition of human and what a human appears to be, I can prove that with ease. Heck, by the artwork plus dialogue, I can prove the FACT, that Hal was pulling WITH Superman, with ease as well. You trying to twist facts by creating false interpretations, notwithstanding.

Not sure how you think attempting (and failing) to draw parallels here can actually help your weak argumentation.

Originally posted by h1a8
Otherwise you gets no proof.

I didn't make any claims. You did. Burden of proof is on you, sport.

Originally posted by h1a8
Then why is it that several members here who first saw the scan thought Superman was doing the pulling alone? Hell the member who first posted the scan said the same thing. You are arguing against common sense. Prehaps you are lying.

Again. Appeal to common belief is a logically fallacy. Just because SOME people DIDN'T read the dialogue and took the feat thru an incorrect interpretation of the art, doesn't make your point right. That is why we need to consider the dialogue as well as the art.

You see, comics is about ART and TEXT. We just don't look at the pretty pictures.

Originally posted by h1a8
Again the writer and artist appeals to the reader's common sense. These events didn't happen. So there is no proving what actually happened.

Your "common sense" isn't exactly common and isn't exactly sense. More like desperate attempts at being right even when very wrong.

Evidence thru black and white (dialogue) supports my argumentation. Nothing supports yours except for a desperate twisting of facts to support crappy logic.

Originally posted by h1a8
All we can do is go off the intentions of the writer and artist, which clearly show Superman doing the pulling.

Only thru REALLY CRAPPY interpretation of art and text. Literal and objective interpretation of art and dialogue would point to a definite conclusion that this was a joint feat.

Funny thing is, you have no proof of a figurative use and you admit to having no proof of a figurative use of the dialogue but yet you keep insisting it.

Originally posted by h1a8
Of course it is. But we have nothing better. I agree, the writer is the only one who can confirm the truth.

There are some instances where clear proof can be derived from scans in a comicbook. A scan w/c shows the Spiderman punching a wall and breaking it is clear evidence that Spiderman CAN punch thru a wall. Then again you might just point out small shadows on the wall, claim they were cracks THEN claim that the wall was weakened beforehand. This is the type of crappy logic you like to use, so I bet even then we'd debate on that for a few pages.

Thing is, you made the claims that Superman was pulling solo here. Prove it clearly or STFU.

Originally posted by h1a8
That's why my argument is not in the truth but in the likelihood of the truth.

No, your argumentation was based on butchering the facts and the INSISTENCE of the passing off the butchery as truth.

Originally posted by h1a8
Correct. Then why still ask me to admit my error? I retracted my statement and inserted another. That means I RETRACTED MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT.

Another butchery of the facts.

You made a "forced" admission immeditiately followed by a retraction of that same admission making the whole thing meaningless.

Here's it in math terms: 1-1=0. Get it now?

Originally posted by h1a8
I don't care if it can be proven or not

Which speaks volumes of how h1a8 BS logic works.

Originally posted by h1a8
My argument is that it is MORE likely that it was figurative language.

But it wasn't. Literal use of the dialogue makes more sense than the figurative one.

Originally posted by h1a8
Nitpick ok. Well, "If the writer wanted to portray GL assisting in the pulling then he wouldn't have the artist drawn it in a way that is seemingly contradictory."

Is that better?

SEE??? You CAN admit you're wrong. Was that so hard? I think you've experience some personal growth here! Everyone Let's give ol' h1 a BIG ROUND OF APPLAUSE!!!

Superman is stronger given the fact that he proba ly didn't let go fully against adam. His figh was nothing like when he fought DS or DD.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Again, you never admitted to being wrong. What you made was a "forced" admission with a retraction attached to it, which is meaningless.

You didn't post anything irrefutable. Just a lot of BS w/c other ppl other than myself will prove wrong.

Except that you made the claim and thus must prove it. What part of "burden of proof" seems to be so complicated to you?

This argumentation is silly. By definition of human and what a human appears to be, I can prove that with ease. Heck, by the artwork plus dialogue, I can prove the FACT, that Hal was pulling WITH Superman, with ease as well. You trying to twist facts by creating false interpretations, notwithstanding.

Not sure how you think attempting (and failing) to draw parallels here can actually help your weak argumentation.

I didn't make any claims. You did. Burden of proof is on you, sport.

You ask for proof that it APPEARS. I break the burden of proof Laws when it comes to common sense. It makes no sense to try to prove something appears a certain way when we are provided with the picture already.

Again. Appeal to common belief is a logically fallacy. Just because SOME people DIDN'T read the dialogue and took the feat thru an incorrect interpretation of the art, doesn't make your point right. That is why we need to consider the dialogue as well as the art.

You see, comics is about ART and TEXT. We just don't look at the pretty pictures.

Your "common sense" isn't exactly common and isn't exactly sense. More like desperate attempts at being right even when very wrong.

Evidence thru black and white (dialogue) supports my argumentation. Nothing supports yours except for a desperate twisting of facts to support crappy logic.

Only thru REALLY CRAPPY interpretation of art and text. Literal and objective interpretation of art and dialogue would point to a definite conclusion that this was a joint feat.

Funny thing is, you have no proof of a figurative use and you admit to having no proof of a figurative use of the dialogue but yet you keep insisting it.

There are some instances where clear proof can be derived from scans in a comicbook. A scan w/c shows the Spiderman punching a wall and breaking it is clear evidence that Spiderman CAN punch thru a wall. Then again you might just point out small shadows on the wall, claim they were cracks THEN claim that the wall was weakened beforehand. This is the type of crappy logic you like to use, so I bet even then we'd debate on that for a few pages.

Another butchery of the facts.

You made a "forced" admission immeditiately followed by a retraction of that same admission making the whole thing meaningless.

But it wasn't. Literal use of the dialogue makes more sense than the figurative one.

SEE??? You CAN admit you're wrong. Was that so hard? I think you've experience some personal growth here! Everyone Let's give ol' h1 a BIG ROUND OF APPLAUSE!!!

Originally posted by Philosophía
Superman completly destroys Black Adam.

❌

Black Adam spoils those pretty posterboy looks.

Originally posted by Mshinu
Black Adam spoils those pretty posterboy looks.

Adam

Originally posted by h1a8
You misunderstand! I said my original claim IMPLIED that it was irrefutable. That is where I admitted my mistake. Thus it was retracted. I just created a NEW argument that since my statement is not necessarily wrong (only the implication inside of it) then it is more believable that my original statement is true.

Haha. Do you even see how convoluted this statement sounds?

You didn't imply anything nor did you retract anything. Thus, you didn't create a new argument. And you need to prove your statement as you are the one who made the claim. SHEESH. What part of "burden of proof" can you not get?

Originally posted by h1a8
You can prove that a human appears to be a human but you can't prove that it doesn't appear be an alien. For aliens can possibly look human.

Where did you learn your debating rules? One cannot prove a negative. Thus, you asking me to disprove your assumption of a figurative use is pretty fail as well.

Originally posted by h1a8
You ask for proof that it APPEARS. I break the burden of proof Laws when it comes to common sense. It makes no sense to try to prove something appears a certain way when we are provided with the picture already.

Here's something you don't seem to get. It DOESN'T appear to be a certain way. The art is in no way conclusive. You trying to insist it and trying to force a weak interpretation by basing off the statements of the biased or less informed, notwithstanding. that is why we need to take both the art and dialogue together. Sheesh.

Originally posted by h1a8
It is not a logical fallacy when that is all we have. Doing so when one can appeal to the truth is indeed a logical fallacy. But we don't know the truth. We can only estimate the likelihood of it in this case.

FAIL. A fallacy is a fallacy regardless of how you try to make it acceptable. It is still wrong. Especially in this regard where you seem to be basing your assumption on the minority. 3 ppl think that there MAY be (let me be very clear that they don't seem all that convinced either) a POSSIBILITY of a figurative use. One is always biased (lightyear) and the other didn't READ the scan (the "marvel fan"😉. The third isn't as sure either and is possibly just as biased.

The rest (even DC fans) think you're full of it.

Originally posted by h1a8
The artwork contradicts the dialogue along with Superman's comments. Thus rendering the dialogue of Hal figurative and the artwork true to appearance.

No it doesn't. Everything makes sense and a figurative use of the dialogue makes FAR LESS sense than the using the dialogue as it is written.

I made several arguments to invalidate ALL your points. You failed to address most of them.

Originally posted by h1a8
My argument is stronger than yours by far.

Only in your deluded eyes.

Originally posted by h1a8
If something is drawn to look a certain way then it renders the dialogue figurative.

I would agree to this, except that you were unable to prove that the artwork supports your argument conclusively.

Originally posted by h1a8
Using your logic, a writer can show a character lifting a truck and a character stating "Wow. This dude just lifted a million pounds." But we must go on the dialogue as black and white? NO! That would be nonsense.

Except the artwork is not in any way conclusive and only the most desperate butchery of interpretations of the artwork can support your claims.

Originally posted by h1a8
Why do you insist on using the word PROOF. This is not a proof argument.

Because you made claims and you need to prove it?

Originally posted by h1a8
It is whether something is more believable which is ONLY based off opinion (though popular opinion shows the likelihood of the opinion conforming to the truth).

This is the funny part of your failure. You made claims. You admit to being unable to prove the claims. Yet you insist on using unproven feats.

Funnier still is your appeal to just using opinions as proof of feats.

Funniest still is how hypocritical it sounds as you have requested undeniable PROOF before accepting feats as admissible many times.

Why are you such a hypocrite?

Here's an example: "hey I THINK the Runner was fighting at FTL speeds against the Surfer cuz it's my opinion that the Surfer always flies at FTL speeds!!!"?

Originally posted by h1a8
A crack in the wall? LOL. I don't debate like that.

Yes you do. You really do. You might wanna look inwards and maybe asses how you are as a person cuz I think you might have a false impression of what kind of debater you are.

Originally posted by h1a8
I admit to using things that necessarily aren't shown in other threads. I was wrong for that.

Just one of your many flaws, tbh.

Originally posted by h1a8
Writer's intentions are more important, how things are drawn in conjunction to dialogue especially.

None of this applies to your scan. You were unable to establish that the artwork conclusively proves anything.

Originally posted by h1a8
No it doesn't. These are beings that have emotions and talk like us. Having all characters speak literally ALL THE TIME would make less sense than having them speak literally some of the time.

Except that it doesn't apply to this scan. There is little to prove your point. AGAIN, the artwork is inconclusive. The dialogue, taken literally, makes sense. All you have is the hope of a second interpretation of the artwork that really doesn't coincide well with the totality of the dialogue.

Originally posted by h1a8
TY. But my point still stands.

Nope.

Is there any way you guys could shorten or better summarise your arguments? I like that you guys are willing to write so much, but a wall of text can be a bit daunting.

That, and i'm not quite sure i understand what point either of you are trying to make...

These two are still going at it? Wow. They get points for persistence.

What don't they just do a battle zone and end it there?

Frankly, I would have given up a while ago.